Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

See If You Can Spot The Problem With This Theology


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Hi all
 
Here is an excerpt from a preacher cica 1960. Tell me what's wrong with it. I'd highlight the relevant bits but it'd give it away. Your answer should include a biblical reference that shows what is wrong with this excerpt. There are multiple possible avenues that refute this, but points to the person who hits pretty much the avenue I'm thinking of.
 
"Now, now, there... Now, you're going to... Be many disagree with this, but I want you to think real hard before you make your decision. See? I'm going to say something now: That's the reason I don't believe that there is an Eternal hell. There cannot be an Eternal hell. 'Cause if there ever was an Eternal hell, then there always was an Eternal hell, 'cause Eternal... There's only one form of Eternal Life, and that's what we're all striving for. And if you're going to burn forever and for Eternity, then you'll have to have Eternal Life burning, and then it'd be God burning. You can't have Eternal hell, and the Bible plainly says that "hell was created." And if it's created, it isn't Eternal. Anything that's Eternal never was created; it always was, it's Eternal. And the Bible says that "Hell was created for the devil and his angels." Hell was created, it isn't Eternal. And I do not believe that a person will be Eternally punished."
60-1206 THE.SMYRNAEAN.CHURCH.AGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first problem with this theology is that it's all bullshit.

 

The second problem is that the preacher is confusing "eternal" with "sempiternal." You can have a starting point of a state of affairs that never ends, same as you can have a ray extend into infinity from a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Lol, naturally its bullshit. biggrin.png

Something struck me though as a flaw in his reasoning. I hadn't considered your avenue. I had thought he is trying to artificially separate the terms forever, everlasting, and eternal. If you search the definitions of these they are often used to describe each other, meaning there is interchangeability between the terms. (This is what happens to a preacher who boasts about not needing to be educated, and he is "only 5h grade educated".)

However, despite that there is a fundamental flaw with his reasoning with relation to this line: He says "the Bible plainly says that "hell was created." And if it's created, it isn't Eternal. Anything that's Eternal never was created; it always was, it's Eternal"

To figure out what is really moronic with this line we have to go to the very beginning of the Bible which states, rather plainly, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." There was nothing, then God created it. So if he wants to say Hell cannot be eternal because it was created, then that means Heaven cannot be eternal because it was created... meaning the Christians idea of an eternal life of bliss is royally screwed.

(Side note: This is probably why most Christians subscribe to an eternal hell.... but hang on, I thought the idea of Christianity is to have eternal life... but if everyone burns for Eternity they still have eternal life.... just somewhat unpleasant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a discussion about hell with my former pastor, I stated that it seemed to me a couple hundred years of burning alive in a lake of fire should be sufficient punishment for even the vilest sinner who ever lived. I was trying to open his mind to what a horrid idea eternal suffering in hell really is. No chance. Apparently, his sense of compassion and mercy does not engage when it comes to hell. But hey, he is simply taking the same position as the god he serves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey LogicalFallacy, what your preacher chap says sounds like something from a dude who has no more than a fifth grade eddication.

 

The polarity "created | uncreated" does not necessarily run congruent to the trifecta of "everlasting | eternal in one direction | temporal." For example, a venerable interpretation of Plato's Timaeus holds that "Timaeus'" account of the fashioning of the cosmos is only described metaphorically as having a starting point, that in fact, Plato held that the universe is eternal  in both directions and the "creation" metaphor highlights how lower beings depend for their existence on the divine artisan. In response to some Muslim philosophers, Aquinas even allowed that from the philosophical POV, creation might never have taken place in time but rather, that the universe might be eternal in both directions but SUSTAINED in being at its every moment by God. (Aquinas said that it's by revelation that we know that the universe had a beginning, not by reason.)

 

So if Hell is described as "created," that need not mean that it must have had a beginning and therefore, must have a point of cessation. the "Created" language need not do anything more than show that Hell is kept in being by God.

 

Your preacher really can't deduce temporality in the way he's trying to do.

 

Now, if only he can take the next step to realize that it's all bunk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

So are you saying that the word 'created' in Genesis does not necessarily imply an absolute beginning to heavens and earth? In which case would put something of a dent in the creationist view.

 

Therefore, Christians pointing to the Big Bang as evidence of creation, while at the same time scoffing at Kraus's universe from nothing theory, may have their wires crossed. What is their phrase... 'you can't create something from nothing'. Well only if you are looking from the viewpoint of our human conception of creation.

 

 

PS; I have witnessed preachers shooting themselves in the foot with their sermons and being quite proud of it. Very few realise or admit its all bunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've forgotten most of the Hebrew I once knew, so of Genesis 1:1 I don't remember the verb that's translated as "created." I think it's undubitable that the text of Genesis, and later biblical treatments of creation, means "brought into being at a starting point in time." I don't know whether the Hebrew requires that there was no preexisting material the God shaped, but that's not relevant to the Creation in Time question.

 

The issue is, how to interpret such verses. The stuff I mentioned above was to point out that over centuries, some commentators took creation in time as a metaphor for God's sustaining activity. Those philosophers would argue that God's sustaining power is what really matters in real life and in proofs of God, more so than the question, did God jump-start the process out of nothing.

 

Since creationists are literalists, they would not go for such metaphors. But they might have their sails deflated a bit to learn that Aquinas thought it philosophically irrelevant whether the universe has a beginning in time. Aquinas argued against the notorious Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

As for your preacher's stuff on hell, I just reiterate that I see no reason why hell can't be everlasting into the future though not everlasting back into the past. Since Christians need to hold that whatever exists, exists because God sustains it in being, your preacher can't argue that Hell will just wind down and end, commensurately with its beginning. ANYTHING for the Christian would poof out of existence if God did not sustain it in being at every moment. I think that's taught in - where, Colossians? "in whom we live and move and have our being"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To LogicalFallacy and Ficino...

 

As far as I'm concerned, both scenarios (Biblical literalism or trying to reconcile science with scripture) are doomed to failure.  

The first, because the literalist use of Hebrews 11 : 3 generates a circular argument and all such arguments are invalid.  

The second, because theists always (Yes, I mean always) cheat when trying to reconcile science with Genesis 1 : 1.

.

.

.

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3

 

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

The above fails, because of this.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/31/Appeal-to-Faith

.

.

.

These four things listed below, when taken together and correctly applied to the evidence, ensure that cosmology and scripture cannot be reconciled.  

Thus the Bible fails at verse one, falsifying all of it.

Which I call the 'decapitation' of Christianity, making any need to look beyond the first verse... superfluous.

.

.

.

The Copernican Principle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

Parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor) https://philosophynow.org/issues/81/Parsimony_In_as_few_words_as_possible

 

Inflationary Cosmology http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_zero.php

 

The Infinite Replication Paradox http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/afterlife-under-physicalism-t21843.html (See post # 2, by Teuton)

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA, you should debate with my father. biggrin.png

 

(Actually it's getting harder because he's moving outside the bible to personal revelation which can't be argued against from a biblical stand point because 'you must have the bible revealed to you' (or him rather). No good trying to understand it with your mind. )

 

On the plus side I did have a robust discussion tonight... we didn't get anywhere, but it was congenial.

 

I will hit him one day with the stop at the beginning argument, but for now I'll debate around the edges, and even then I'll only use it if I have to. If they (family) accept my position before that point all well and good.

 

Ficino, thanks for clarifying. Certainly interesting getting a philosophical point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... I dunno about debating with your father, LF.

 

unsure.png

 

If he's going to go all subjective on me, then what we'd have wouldn't be a debate, would it?  A debate requires both parties to agree on what is permissible and what isn't.  If he uses 'special knowledge' or claims that my understanding is faulty (but doesn't have to prove that, because my faultiness has been revealed to him) then he's inhabiting his own (subjective) reality and not the shared (objective) reality that a debate demands.  So, unless he and I could agree on terms before we debate, I don't think there'd be much point in us doing so.

 

But maybe you could broach the idea of laying ground rules for debating that both of you have to stick, LF?  After all, if he refuses, you can then say that he's being unreasonable, illogical and irrational - because reason, logic and rationality are the foundation of all debate.  

 

Food for thought, anyway.

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This preacher also said this: "There's only one form of Eternal Life, and that's what we're all striving for." But on his principles, eternal life can have no beginning, cuz Eternal. So either he can only attain Eternal Life if he himself preexisted eternally into the past, or, if he began to exist when he was conceived, he cannot attain eternal life.

 

BAA, yes, I agree that theists cheat when they try to harmonize scripture with science. But some of them also fail even on their own assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This preacher also said this: "There's only one form of Eternal Life, and that's what we're all striving for." But on his principles, eternal life can have no beginning, cuz Eternal. So either he can only attain Eternal Life if he himself preexisted eternally into the past, or, if he began to exist when he was conceived, he cannot attain eternal life.

 

BAA, yes, I agree that theists cheat when they try to harmonize scripture with science. But some of them also fail even on their own assumptions.

 

Well, said preacher could try and dodge that one by claiming that he has always existed within the eternal mind of God and God has eternally known those who are His.

 

But doing that means going down the Predestination vs. Free Will rabbit hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, he'd get into other problems, depending on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

This preacher also said this: "There's only one form of Eternal Life, and that's what we're all striving for." But on his principles, eternal life can have no beginning, cuz Eternal. So either he can only attain Eternal Life if he himself preexisted eternally into the past, or, if he began to exist when he was conceived, he cannot attain eternal life.

 

BAA, yes, I agree that theists cheat when they try to harmonize scripture with science. But some of them also fail even on their own assumptions.

 

Well, said preacher could try and dodge that one by claiming that he has always existed within the eternal mind of God and God has eternally known those who are His.

 

But doing that means going down the Predestination vs. Free Will rabbit hole.

 

BAA you are too good! I was about to reply to Ficino, then I looked at your reply and thought, damn he nailed it before I did.

 

Yes this preacher (Not my father by the way - another one that we get a lot of doctrine from) claims we existed in the mind of God as his children before the foundation of the world. "We were in the back part of Gods mind when he saw a lamb slain before he created the universe" So that is how we are 'eternal'

 

This is an important point for me, because on their argument, they prove my point that all that is, all the evil, suffering, everything bad that has ever happened, has ONLY happened because God planned it and decreed it. Case closed for the "where did evil come from?" argument. The devil? No, God had a plan, and the devil was merely a part of this plan based on their beliefs.

 

Regarding predestination vs free will - yep, he keeps going on about how God wanted us to have free will. Then in the next sentence says God chose us before he created the earth. Well make up your mind please! The scripture of Jesus praying to let the cup pass from him was used as an example of free will, but its exactly the opposite. This is a prime example of surrendering free will. "But not my will, but thine be done"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This preacher also said this: "There's only one form of Eternal Life, and that's what we're all striving for." But on his principles, eternal life can have no beginning, cuz Eternal. So either he can only attain Eternal Life if he himself preexisted eternally into the past, or, if he began to exist when he was conceived, he cannot attain eternal life.

 

BAA, yes, I agree that theists cheat when they try to harmonize scripture with science. But some of them also fail even on their own assumptions.

 

Well, said preacher could try and dodge that one by claiming that he has always existed within the eternal mind of God and God has eternally known those who are His.

 

But doing that means going down the Predestination vs. Free Will rabbit hole.

 

BAA you are too good! I was about to reply to Ficino, then I looked at your reply and thought, damn he nailed it before I did.

 

Yes this preacher (Not my father by the way - another one that we get a lot of doctrine from) claims we existed in the mind of God as his children before the foundation of the world. "We were in the back part of Gods mind when he saw a lamb slain before he created the universe" So that is how we are 'eternal'

 

This is an important point for me, because on their argument, they prove my point that all that is, all the evil, suffering, everything bad that has ever happened, has ONLY happened because God planned it and decreed it. Case closed for the "where did evil come from?" argument. The devil? No, God had a plan, and the devil was merely a part of this plan based on their beliefs.

 

Regarding predestination vs free will - yep, he keeps going on about how God wanted us to have free will. Then in the next sentence says God chose us before he created the earth. Well make up your mind please! The scripture of Jesus praying to let the cup pass from him was used as an example of free will, but its exactly the opposite. This is a prime example of surrendering free will. "But not my will, but thine be done"

 

 

Ah well, this is ground that Ficino, the RedneckProf, Jeff and Ironhorse have covered before you signed up, LF.

 

Here's the link.  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72381-trust-yourself/page-7#.WEiZY7KLSpp (Start at post # 127)

 

Please do read thru to the end of the thread - it's an education!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed christian theology and Bible present God as first cause of every event AND present humans as making choices and as responsible for what they do - so they can be punished.

 

If the preacher tried to claim that he is eternal back into the past because God foreknows him, this will fail. It confuses actuality and potentiality in a way too tedious to go into unless people want to. It also ignores scripture, such as "Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)" - presenting Christ as preexisting but Abraham as not so. Or "he knit me together in my mother's womb (Ps. 139:13)." Before the womb, no "me." Etc.

 

Anyway, the preacher's original assertion, that hell is not forwards everlasting because it was created, is neither scriptural nor logical. His argument, that he himself is created but God's knowledge makes him eternal both ways, applies to anything that is created, so there is no basis for denying this consequence for hell. His argument for his own eternity makes hell eternal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Will do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.